High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bhupendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 35691 of 2006  RD-AH 1051 (17 January 2007)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.35691 OF 2006
Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P. & others.
Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Mehta for the respondent no.3, the Official Liquidator and the learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.
Inspite of the time being granted learned Standing Counsel has not filed any counter affidavit. In connected matters, the Official Liquidator has filed his counter affidavit.
This petition is directed against an order dated 29.3.2006 by which the claim of the petitioner for absorption in Government departments under the U.P. Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporation in Government Services Rule, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Absorption Rule, 1991) has been rejected.
The petitioner claiming to be retrenched employee of the U.P. Cement Corporation sought absorption under the Absorption Rules, 1991 but as no action was taken he preferred Writ Petition No. 51487 of 2004 ( Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) and a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed off the petition vide order dated 21.2.2006 directing the respondents to consider their claim by a reasoned order. In pursuance thereof, by the impugned order the claim has been rejected on the ground that their case is not covered by the earlier judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No.17195 of 1998) decided on 29.4.1999 and also that no retrenchment certificate has been issued by the State and further that they cannot be appointed in view of the fact that 1991 Rule has been rescinded and replaced by 2003 Rules. These very grounds were raised in the connected petition No.22728 of 2006 (Vikrmaditya Pandey & others v. State of U.P. & others) and the objections have been overruled.
However, the learned counsel for the State and the Official Liquidator have urged that even according to the own showing of the petitioners they are not covered under the Absorption Rules of 1991.
The Absorption Rules of 1991 defines "retrenched employee" as follows:
" "Retrenched employee" means a person who was appointed on a post under the Government a public corporation on or before October 1, 1986 in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post and was continuously working in any post under the Government or such Corporation up to the date of his retrenchment due to reduction in, or winding up of, any establishment of the Government of the Corporation, as the case may be and in respect of whom a certificate of being a retrenched employee has been issued by his appointing authority."
From a perusal of the aforesaid definition, it would be apparent that only those employees who had been appointed against any post prior to 1st of October, 1986 in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Rules.
From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition it is evident that the petitioner was offered appointment as a Store Officer vide letter dated 22.12.1986 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Thus, it is apparent tht he was appointed after cut off date, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the Absorption Rules, 1991.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.